Council Meeting

Good evening, View Royal.

I'll call the council meeting to order for uh Tuesday, May 19th, 2026.

Um, start with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Konguin speaking people known today as the Esquimalt Nation and Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

This evening we'll hear from the public, you uh during the public participation and question period portions of the agenda.

Uh specifically, though, if you want to provide comments uh to council uh regarding the development variance permit for 309 View Royal Avenue, there's a specific time in there uh for that application uh to be considered for this meeting.

So uh during normal public participation, if you have a comment on 309 View Royal having to do with the development variance permit, just wait till the appropriate time in the agenda.

There's a separate space out there that council can pay attention to and focus on that issue there.

A reminder that council is a safe, respectful, and inclusive space.

All members of the audience are asked to refrain from clapping or cheering or openly expressing your opposing opinions when others are speaking or when they are done speaking.

Uh if you wish to provide comments during the public participation period or ask questions during the question period, please begin by just indicating your uh your name and your street name without a number.

Uh for the record, you may then give us the benefit of your views.

To provide comments virtually uh during the public participation period or to ask questions during the question period, scan the QR code or use the link in the live webcast stream uh screen or the town's website under live webcast.

Again, we ask you that you provide your name and your street name to begin the comments, and then your comment will be read aloud by a member of a webcast team.

Public participation comments are limited to five minutes for each speaker and must be related to items on the agenda.

And question period is open to anything and is limited to two minutes for each speaker.

The meeting will be recorded by participating in this webcast.

You are consenting to being recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's website for future access.

May I have an motion to approve the agenda approved?

Moved by Councillor Matson, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All those in favor, any opposed.

And that includes the blue sheet, which you uh should have.

That's uh late correspondence for emails received uh today.

Um that brings us right down to public participation period, I believe.

So if anybody wants to address counsel on anything related to the agenda, um, you're free to come up to the podium and uh address council.

Go ahead, Diane.

I'm sure that you're all wondering what I'm here to speak about tonight.

Um, once again, thank you for letting me speak tonight.

Um, and I know I've already spoken on the issue of short-term rentals um a few times now, and I don't want to repeat everything I've said before.

What I really want to focus on tonight is the contradiction I keep seeing between the town's own reports, values, stated goals, and the approach being taken towards short-term rentals.

I have spent a lot of time reading the reports, the home occupation review, the short-term rental review, the town's vision, mission, and value statements.

What stood out to me is that the town talks about being innovative, evidence-based, business friendly, collaborative, and aligned with neighboring municipalities.

The town talks about supporting home based business, creating a vibrant local economy, reducing commuting, modernizing regulations, and removing rules that are subjective or difficult to enforce.

Honestly, those all sound like good goals to me.

But when it comes to short-term rentals, it suddenly feels like it's a different conversation.

The province already reviewed the issue across BC.

They already decided that principal resident short-term rentals were not the main cause of the housing crisis.

That is why they allow homeowners to rent within their primary residence while targeting large commercial operators removing housing from the market, and that that distinction is important to note.

There's a huge difference between a corporation operating multiple investment properties and an ordinary homeowner renting a sweeter room in the home that they actually live in.

And according to the town's own report, we are talking about seven active listings in View Royal.

Seven. That doesn't look like a neighborhoods being overtaken by commercial tourism.

It looks like a small number of residents trying to create some flexibility in their homes.

And people use these rentals, as we've talked about before, for all kinds of reasons that are not vacations.

People come here for temporary work, medical appointments, renovations, family visits, construction projects, film work, or because they are between housing situations.

These rentals serve a purpose.

And what I find hard to understand is why the town is reviewing ways to modernize and expand other home based businesses while continuing to treat short-term rentals completely differently.

The home occupation report talks about aligning with neighboring municipalities.

Langford and Culbert already follow the provincial framework.

The report talks about moving removing regulations that are subjective or difficult to enforce.

At the same time, staff acknowledges that short-term rental enforcement already mostly happens through complaints because active enforcement is difficult.

So if the goals are clarity, consistency, and enforceable rules, then I honestly don't understand why aligning with the provincial framework would not make more sense, especially because the tools already exist.

The province already has registration requirements.

The town can regulate parking, occupancy, noise, and licensing.

And bed and breakfasts are already allowed.

So the principal owner operated short-term accommodations can exist in residential neighborhoods and has already been accepted by the town.

That is why this no longer feels like a discussion about whether short-term accommodation belongs in residential areas, because it already exists.

To me, the real question is whether the town is willing to modernize the bylaws in a way that is practical, fair, and consistent with both provincial legislation and the town's own values.

And I also think public trust matters.

Residents should not be left trying to navigate one set of rules from the province and another from the town, especially after the amnesty period created the impression that people could operate legally while the provincial compliance was still not possible.

I don't think the situation reflects carity or good governance.

At the end of the day, I'm not asking council to support uncontrolled commercialization of neighborhoods.

I am asking for a balanced and reasonable approach that recognizes the differences between commercial operators and ordinary homeowners, an approach that aligns with the province, an approach that aligns with neighboring municipalities, and honestly, an approach that better reflects the town's own values around fairness, practicality, transparency, and evidence-based decision making.

For those reasons, I support Councillor Brown's motion.

Thank you.

And anybody else would like to address counsel on any topic related to the agenda.

Okay with me and my husband.

I'm not much of a public speaker.

Thank you very much for listening to me tonight.

My name is Rachel and we live on DeGoutier in place in View Royal.

So we are here to support Diane in uh her words and everything that she just said, basically completely um explains our current situation.

Uh, when we purchased our home, we purchased it with a secondary suite with the intent that it would be a future home for my elderly parents or for my husbands.

Um, and when that wasn't the case, uh we decided we would be renting it out.

Uh since then, we've been able to rent, we were renting it on Airbnb for a short while.

And then, due to province regulations and everything else that was happening with the town, we were no longer able to do that, which lent itself to a loss of income for our ourselves.

Um, in addition to at the time, my husband was in between jobs, and so he was losing income as well.

And it was a severe financial impact for us.

We almost lost our home because of it.

Um, last year we um we didn't have that source of income for a total of four months out of the year, which was really, really critical to us.

Uh we love living in the area.

We want to continue living in the area.

We are able to rent, and we are currently renting out uh to an individual that is going to be with us for three and a half months.

And that's just by fluke.

We have advertised, we have tried to get other people to come and rent our space, and they are just not coming to us.

So I just wanted to make that clear tonight.

Like if you're looking for long-term rentals to be coming into these small secondary suite spaces, that's not what they were built for.

It's not in the intent what their intended purpose is for, is to be making them into full-fledged apartments.

Thank you very much.

I really appreciate your time.

Do you want to I'll just if you hi I'm Scott?

Um a little background on it too.

Um, the secondary sweet market, uh, I mean, we're a small family.

Uh it allowed Rachel to be home with the kids.

Now she can't. Uh that income was really necessary to us.

Uh everybody who stayed at our unit was embraced in our neighborhood on our streets.

Uh our neighbors were we have the parking space, we take very good care of the property.

Uh we do a lot to actually ensure that we have good tenants and that we just don't have anyone showing up willy-nilly.

Uh, we have respectful by bylaws in our own, like no smoking, no smoking, vaping, or any marijuana on the property.

Um, so we're we're very thoughtful of the community.

Uh and this is really necessary, I think, for the community to have people come in.

We had this lovely couple that used to come in from Ireland every year uh to spend time with her son who lived down the road.

Uh actually we have grandchildren.

Grandchildren, another lady came and stayed with us for a while so while she uh took care of her granddaughter.

Uh we've had a lot of people who are coming in uh moving to the island and needed a little place until they could find their own accommodations.

So I think there is a service for this type of unit.

We're not having teenagers having big parties, we're having nice people come in who are their temporary reasons.

It's a fully furnished, and it's I think a service that we should be able to provide.

Uh I think it really actually helps our community.

It brings people in the community.

I mean, hotels are super expensive.

And if you needed to spend time with your grandkids and you're spending $250 a night on a hotel where you could get something in an Airbnb for $75, you know, it becomes reasonable, and people can come now and spend time in our community.

And they're going to our restaurants and they're buying our shop at our shops and you know, going to the gas stations and the grocery stores.

So they do add to the economic balance of the community as well.

So we're just asking that you look into this and go, hey, this is something I think that View Royal could commit to and work on and support.

Uh and again, as Diane said, there isn't a lot of us, but I think that little bit brings families and friends into the neighborhood and helps smarter communities.

So again, we're not a big corporation trying to make a ton of money.

We're just trying to a family trying to make her way through with interest rates at what they are and groceries at what they are.

I have a 16-year-old son that just you know just does not stop eating.

Uh so anyways, this is just us just asking you to please look into it again and realize that there are good people in this uh community that need these type of accommodations.

So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. And uh I'm I'm glad that um we have an opportunity to chat.

Municipalities have really cut back on the amount of engagement that they're listening to the public, but I think we've heard you.

Diane, we have heard you.

Um, but uh uh, you know, on the the topic of getting in front of people and addressing them, uh I appreciate that it takes a bit of courage.

Not everybody is an eloquent public speaker, me included.

Um, so thank you for your comments.

I'm sure that um uh when we reach it on the agenda, there'll be a wholesome discussion.

Uh is there anybody else that wants to talk about anything else, including short-term housing or parking and bike lanes or off-leash dogs?

No. Okay. Um Carl, we got anybody online that uh wants to address council.

Uh Mayor Tobias, we have a message from Kyle Porter of Prince Robert Lane, but I note that it's on the agenda as a late item.

Um, if you'd like, I can read the uh read it out even though it's on the agenda.

Um that it's your choice.

Is it about short-term uh rentals, Carl?

Um checking through, yes.

Okay, go ahead, please.

Um so Kyle Porter says, Dear Mayor Tobias and members of council, first I would like to thank council and staff for having this discussion.

It's an important topic that deserves review.

Regardless of council's eventual decision, I believe it's important that decisions be made using accurate information and a clear understanding of provincial rules already in place.

View Royal currently prohibits virtually all forms of short-term rentals, and I appreciate that the council is taking time to review whether the town should move towards alignment with the province's current framework.

This letter is written in point form with several comments addressing common concerns that I've heard come up in online and personal discussions.

Provincial rules already severely restrict short-term rentals.

Under BC's Short-Term Rental Accommodation Act, short-term rentals in communities such as View Royal are generally limited to a person's general residence and one suite or accessory dwelling unit on the same property.

The province defines a short-term rental as accommodation rented for periods of less than 90 consecutive days.

This means the province has already largely prohibited the old model of investors purchasing multiple homes, condos, or entire buildings to operate as quasi-hotels.

The top typical short-term rental now being discussed is generally an owner-occupied home, suite or portion of a home where the owner actually lives on site.

It's also important to distinguish these from occasional homeowner operated accommodations from purpose-built rental housing.

View Royal has already approved hundreds of dedicated rental housing units in recent years and has contributed significantly to the regional housing supply.

Allowing limited owner-occupied short-term rentals under the province's framework is unlikely to have meaningful impact on overall long-term rental inventory, particularly when many of these spaces would not otherwise be offered as permanent rentals.

The responsibility for addressing regional housing shortages should not fall solely on individual homeowners with spare rooms or secondary spaces in their homes.

Objection number one short-term rentals remove long term housing.

This issue is more complicated than is often presented.

I have extra space in my home.

I also have daughters coming and going for school in periods where family members may need that space again.

If short-term rentals are not permitted, that space will simply sit empty.

The reason is that because once someone occupies a space for more than 90 days, it can become a tenancy under the Residential Tenancy Act.

At that point, the owner cannot simply require the occupant to leave at the end of the agreed period unless the tenant voluntarily agrees.

If the occupant refuses, the owner may be forced into a lengthy legal process through the residential tenancy branch, even when the owner genuinely needs the space back for family or for for personal or family use.

For many homeowners, seniors, families, that creates a level of risk and uncertainty that they are simply not comfortable taking on.

As a result, prohibiting short-term rentals does not automatically create more long-term housing.

In many cases, the space will simply remain unused because owners are not willing to expose themselves to the risk associated with long-term tenancy laws.

Objection number two: short-term rentals create noise and parking problems.

Poor behavior can occur in housing arrangement arrangement, including owner-occupied homes, long-term rentals or short-term short-term accommodations.

However, short-term rentals often include accountability systems that traditionally tenancy arrangements do not have, including guest and host review systems, clear house rules, and quiet hours, immediate removal of problem guests, ongoing oversight.

And I note that the maximum size of the uh form system has cut off the rest of the letter, which again should be on the agenda.

Okay, thanks, Carl.

Uh I'm just checking with a refresh to see if there's any more messages.

One moment. Um, we have no other messages, uh, Mayor Tobias.

Thanks, Carl. That was a lot to read.

So uh appreciate that.

Uh, I think that brings us to the end of public participation, and now we're into bylaws.

Um, I'll get you, I think, to address um 4A, please.

Good evening.

Before you this evening is an amendment to the automated vote counting system authorization and procedure by law.

The proposed amendment seeks to revise the definition of acceptable mark.

When the bylaw was originally adopted in 2002, the vote tabulating equipment at that time recognized the oval-shaped voting targets.

Uh, since that time, we have um updated our vote tabulating equipment, and the new equipment no longer recognizes that shape.

Um, so as a result, the current definition should be revised to remove that um the specific voting target shapes and make it less restrictive.

So the proposed amendment instead refers to a more generally to a clearly completed mark, allowing flexibility um for future ballot design and equipment changes.

Staff are requesting uh council consider giving first, second, and third reading to amendment bylaw 1171, please.

And you uh of course we'd have to move to receive the report and then uh first to third reading, but let's open to questions for Elna for anybody from council.

Is that uh no-brainer?

Seems to me that it just needs to be updated uh for something that's not working now.

Um so can I get a motion to receive the report?

So moved second.

Moved by councilor Matson, seconded by councillor Rogers, all those in favor?

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And do we have somebody that's willing to move from first to third moved?

Second. Moved by councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thank you, Elna.

And then do we have somebody to speak to?

We've already, of course, seen this.

This was the animal control bylaw that came to us for updating.

Uh it has three aspects to it.

One is the bylaw itself, then there's fees and uh charges, and then there's the municipal ticket information bylaw act.

Um, when did we uh increase the the rate for spater or neutered dogs from 25 to 40 dollars?

Is that new or is that old?

I can't remember what I paid this year.

I think uh through the chair, our staff are just mumbling that's new.

Um so so right now is when we're trying to raise the rate for unneutered dogs.

Oh, so just in terms of that, I'm people go to the expense of getting their dogs neutered and anyways.

I I I don't support that one increase for 25 to 40 for spade and neutered dogs.

Okay. Council Ren.

I might be able to clarify because I was in charge of uh CRD bylaw and animal control for many years.

The uh uh licensing is looked after by the CRD um and they retain the revenue except for any licenses that town of the Royal sells here.

And uh the first when you get your animal spay or neutered you get your license for free in that year.

And of course uh in theory once the animals are spay or neutered is less likely for them to run away and uh less impound fees but uh we contract to the uh CRD so I and they they look after licensing they they uh incur all the expenses for the software uh the purchase well the licenses now are permanent now so you get a permanent license uh rather than issuing brand new piece of metal every year but um but that's the reason and of course it's a little bit more for unnew unneutered unspayed uh animals if we just comment I just look at all the other costs that have gone up and this is one that I think is unnecessary and uh just uh clarify uh Scott are these costs set by the town or are they set by CRD I believe they're set by the CRD and uh any other questions for staff I move adoption I had one other question I think there's a hundred dollar fine for underage hens I'm and I anyways that I didn't understand that one at all I'm not sure if that was intended for a reply or whether it's uh uh I didn't hear the question, but I'm speechless.

Uh okay, so we've got a mover and a seconder.

Any other questions?

Uh all those in favor of the uh motion.

Any opposed? And noting counselor mattson's opposed, uh motion carries, and that is for animal control bylaw 614 uh or sorry, amendment uh 1165 2026.

Next one is uh a motion to adopt, and that is to amend the fees and charges pertaining to the move adoption and one one six fix uh counselor uh Rogers moves adoption.

Do I have seconder?

Seconded by Councilor Brown.

Any questions, discussion, comments?

All those in favor.

Any opposed? Noting councillor Mattson's opposed.

Uh everyone else uh is in favor.

Uh and finally the municipal ticket information bylaw uh to amend the municipal ticket information bylaw pertaining to animal control.

Uh the motion is moved to adopt.

Do I have uh mover?

Move by counselor brown, second by councilor Rogers.

All those in favor?

Any opposed? Noting, I think you're either abstaining, which you can't do.

Counselor Matsen, or you're opposed.

Okay. Uh and Councilor Mattson's opposed.

So that's bylaw number 1167.

Um uh approved.

Mayor's report given the length of our agenda.

I will forego this evening.

And staff reports.

That brings us into item seven, which is development variants permit for 2020 602 309 View Royal Avenue.

The staff will have a bit of a report to refresh us because we've already seen this for it to be here.

And any correspondence that we might have received a bit later, which we can receive at that time.

Leah.

Thank you, Marin Council.

So this presentation is for the development variance permit 2026 02 for 309 View Royal Avenue.

The applicant is requesting one variance to the town's zoning bylaw to increase the maximum building height from 7.5 meters to 8 meters.

Next slide, please.

So this application was introduced on uh the April 21st council meeting following the meeting.

Public notification was completed in accordance to the town's development procedures by law.

And following this presentation, as noted, the public will have an opportunity to provide comment, ask questions, and or state concerns before council makes their decision.

Next photo. Next slide, sorry.

So on the screen is an aerial photo uh of the subject property.

Uh 309 View Royal Avenue is located on the corner of View Royal Avenue and Bestboro Avenue, uh, and is currently zoned R1 detached residential.

Next slide, please.

So as mentioned, uh the applicant is requesting a variance to increase the maximum building height from 7.5 to 8 meters.

The existing house is at eight meters.

So they're just looking to align uh their proposed addition with the existing height of the current building.

Next slide, please.

Uh so the recommendation before you today is that council authorize the issuance of the development permit uh following any comment I receive from the public for your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you. Um does the applicant wish to provide any comments.

Okay, thank you.

Uh any comments uh from uh anybody here on the issue of the development variants permit.

Seeing none in here, Carl, did we receive any online for this one?

Um Mayor Thomas, we have no uh comments for this.

And uh I note that the correspondence we have two uh received on the 19th and the 21st of April.

I didn't see any in the late items.

Uh did uh was there any other correspondence aside from those?

No. Thanks, Dan.

Uh, can I get a motion to receive the correspondence associated with this, please?

Second. By counselor Matz and seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed motion carries.

Uh, and now we would go to a um any of the further questions that uh council might have for this one.

I think it's pretty straightforward.

Uh somebody's happy to move it.

Staff recommendation.

Uh second.

Moved by councillor Lemonden, seconded by Councillor McKenzie.

All those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thank you, Lam.

And I think we're down to density bonus zoning bylaw amendments.

Liam.

Good evening, Mayor Tobias and members of council.

Before I get into my presentation this evening on density bonus zoning bylaw provisions, I would like to notify council that there was one attachment that wasn't included in the agenda package, which has now been included.

And what that attachment is is just the draft bylaw, which just identifies the changes.

So the red line version was attached to the report.

However, the draft bylaw was not.

So it's there now if you would like to refresh your screens.

Next slide, please.

The purpose of this presentation is to align the town's zoning bylaw with the provincial density bonus legislation by June 30th, 2026.

Next slide, please.

Next slide. What is density bonusing?

Well, density bonusing is an existing land use planning tool that provides developers with the option to build to a higher density in exchange for amenities.

Amenities can include park improvements, public art, active transportation facilities, community space, affordable housing, to name a few.

Density bonus provisions are typically embedded in zoning bylaws.

Next slide, please.

In April 2024, the province gave Royal Assent to Bill 16, which is Housing Statutes Amendment Act.

Bill 16 includes new rules and requirements for density bonusing and zoning bylaws, which include opportunities for consultation with affected property parties, completion of a financial feasibility analysis that could considers certain matters, and annual reporting.

Prior to this legislation, municipalities could embed density bonusing provisions in their zoning bylaws without public consultation or preparing a financial feasibility analysis.

If there are any existing amenities subject to density bonus in a zoning bylaw, then consultation and a financial feasibility analysis are necessary to retain these provisions.

Next slide, please.

Well, it was adopted in 2014, and it does include density bonus provisions.

There are nine standard residential and commercial zones that contain a density provision related to green roofs.

The zones, I won't read them out, but they are listed on this slide.

Next slide, please.

The town's community amenity contribution policy is still valid regardless of the new legislation on density bonus.

The policy allows the town to negotiate community amenity contributions at the time of rezoning in exchange for density.

So this policy is not going away.

So we can still keep our policy.

And the amenities that include amenities include cash contributions and other community amenities identified in the official community plan, parks master plan, and other town documents.

So again, there are no changes to our community amenity contribution policy.

Next slide, please.

To align the town zoning bylaw with the provincial legislation, it is recommended that we repeal the green roof density bonus provision in the applicable zones.

Except and then in addition, that we do revise an underground parking parking density provision in the RM1 zone for consistency with the OCP.

As we were digging, as we were doing the research, we realized that in the R1 RM1 zone, there is a density provision pertaining to underground parking.

But if a developer applies that density bonus provision, it's actually inconsistent with our OCP, which is not good.

And we our OCP and our zoning bylaw must be consistent.

So we caught that as part of this review.

There are no changes to densities in any of the zones.

So all the density is staying the same.

It's just um uh removing that green roof density bonus provision.

There are 57 properties that would be impacted by the zoning bylaw amendment.

Next slide, please.

The justification for for this these changes are out of the 57 properties, only three properties were developed after the adoption of the zoning bylaw.

There are no green roofs in V Royal.

And this is likely due to the fact that it is financially and or structurally unviable, even with this small density bump to build a green roof.

OCP policy IS 2.1, environmentally sensitive design encourages green roof and developments.

So when we consider a formate character development permit, we do have some design guidelines in place that look at stormwater management on site on site and looking at sustainable measures to deal with stormwater management.

We also have a sustainability checklist that council adopted earlier this year, or pardon me, it was the end of last year, which is also another tool that we can use to work with developers to incorporate these green features in their developments.

In 2026, the town will be undertaking two non capital projects related to inclusionary zoning, density bonus, and amenity cost charges bylaws.

For this work, we have to consult as well as undertake financial feasibility analyses.

And unfortunately, the provincial timeline and our timeline are do not align.

Part of that reason is we've had the OCP that we've been working on over the last two years, and there has not really been any capacity to undergo further consultation and financial feasibility analyses in the last two years for this work on just looking at green roofs.

Next slide, please.

The properties impacted by repealing the green roof density bonus provision will no longer have an incentive to install green roofs in new developments.

However, council may wish to note that since this provision has been in place since 2014, we have had no green roofs constructed, partially because it's likely unviable with the small density bump that is included in these zones.

Staff, and again, I mentioned this in the previous slide, but staff will begin work on all of this comprehensive work actually on density bonus, inclusionary zoning, and many cost charges bylaw, as well as the development cost charges bylaw this year.

And this is will be a good time for our town to look at all community amenities that bring a public benefit to the town.

Applicable zones.

A public hearing is not it's not um is not um required um for these proposed bylaw amendments as it is these amendments are consistent with the town's official community plan um however this town must give public notice of the zoning bylaw amendments in accordance with the local government act prior to first second and third reading of the zoning bylaw that concludes my presentation I'm happy to take any questions thank you thanks for the presentation Leanne any questions for Leanne Councillor Matson so basically we're just in doing this we're just sort of getting in sync with provincial legislation through through the mayor that is correct and my other thank you and my other question is are there other so by removing these two we will remove all other options for bonus density from our bylaw I just can't remember that these are the only two aren't they so uh through through the mayor um in the report it also identifies the right now um there is a density bonus provision associated with underground parking however through a legal review with the town's um solicitor uh it was confirmed that the location of parking can be regulated under another section of the local government act and we can retain that uh the purpose for incorporating that type of provision was to encourage uh not encourage discourage uh asphalt desert on properties and a bunch of surface parking and uh reducing the amount of space for trees and landscaping however we have discovered that we can the underground parking can be um grounded under another section of the OCP so uh sorry are under the local government act, uh we did have to um slightly revise the wording slightly in the in the um zoning bylaw amendment to make that work, but that is still in the bylaw.

And my last question with respect to that is at the end of the day, is it still a council decision on whether we want to allow bonus density or because it's in the bylaw, council has sort of lost the option to say no, we don't want to allow that.

Um through through the through the mayor, uh there'll be no more density bonusing in our zoning bylaw.

Uh the all the properties that are currently zoned, one of those nine zones have um have been developed.

Um properties are underdeveloped, but uh if they were going to add more building or more floor area on a property, it would have to be consistent with the current zone.

Uh if one was wanting to re-rezone to one of the affected nine zones, um uh it would be um a discussion at the time of rezoning.

Thank you.

Counselor Matson, Councillor McKenzie, please.

Thank you, Leanne.

Um, so I'm curious, we we've kind of guessed that the uptake has been because it's not feasible or financially and otherwise.

I was wondering if you're aware of any other municipalities that have actually been able to achieve this or if and have the green roofs, or is it um not aware of anyone else who can do it?

Through the mayor, I'm not aware of other municipalities.

Other municipalities um may have um include some amenity space, dense other amenities space density bonusing requirements, uh, but those municipalities would have had to undergo consultation and a financial feasibility analysis to either you know to retain those types of defense density bonus provisions in their zoning bylaw.

And I haven't done a uh a fulsome review of other municipalities.

Uh I'm do we're just following the provincial legislation.

All right, thank you.

I just uh the dream of I think somebody came to present and they had an image on the screen that held all these green roofs, and I was like, that's what we want.

So unfortunately, I guess that dream is unattainable, but thank you.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie, Councillor Lyman, please.

So Leanne, if we left it in the bylaw, are we in contravention?

Okay.

Through Mayor DeBise, that's a good question.

The legislation is silent on that.

Um, but in um in but through their legal review, it was conf it was confirmed that if we keep that um provision in the zoning by zoning bylaw, it would be considered invalid.

Okay, good. Um just further to a com a comment you made later in response to a question.

Um when you said there's no more density bonus provisions in the bylaw.

Does that negate the possibility?

Say, you know, hypothetically, and it has happened.

Uh developer comes to us and says, Um, I I want to put up a five-story building on this property.

Um, but it's, you know, the OCP only says four.

But if I put in a doctor's office, for example, we're really looking for doctor's offices.

Do we no longer have the option to or the opportunity to negotiate that?

Through the mayor, we don't have those density bonus provisions in our zoning bylaw right now.

Uh, we still have our community amenity contribution policy that was still apply.

So if uh a developer would like to rezone their property for more density, we would be, you know, we would uh apply the our amenity contribution our community amenity contribution policy uh with respect to um encouraging ground floor medical offices, those are conversations that we can have at the time of rezoning to uh further advance uh the OCP objectives and policies.

Good thanks.

Anyone else for questions for uh comments?

Uh please do, Councilor Matson.

Moved and seconded by Councillor Rogers, all those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, and of course we'll get this back.

This is just direction uh for you, Leanne, to go away and uh do it and then come back and uh uh we'll have a greater discussion then.

I think you're still up for the volunteer community improvement grant program policy.

That's a mouthful.

Um this uh council we've of course seen before this was uh a small uh town contribution for volunteer uh community improvements or neighborhoods.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Staff presented on the draft uh volunteer community improvement grant um program policy back in January.

Uh go ahead, Leanne.

It was just more uh report um to receive for information now that council has adopt the um 2026 budget.

Staff is now bringing forward the policy for approval.

The volunteer community improvement grant program is an approved um non-capital project in the 2026 and 2030 financial plan to be implemented this year.

The purpose of this project is to develop a program to allow individuals or community groups to apply for grants to voluntarily undertake community building and beautification projects within public space and foster positive connections among residents in View Royal.

This grant program um includes an application process, which is outlined in the policy, and it would be administered in-house.

So it'll be done by staff.

The budget is $2,500 to approve grants up to $500, which is equivalent to approximately five community projects a year.

So that is a bit of background.

I and uh so tonight uh staff is looking for um approval of the policy, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

I did have one question, uh, but happy that you moved it.

And do we have a second or so?

Uh Councilor Brown.

Uh so what happens if uh it's outrageously popular?

Um people are really doing it, and so we hit five and expend the budget to staff then come back and ask for a request that it the budget gets lifted to add more communities to it, or is that just done for the year?

That is um through the mayor. That is it is done for the year. So the budget for 2026 is $2,500.

And is there a plan to um it's hard to apply for something if you don't know kind of what it is.

So is there a bit of a communications plan that will go out so uh people would know here's the types of things that would qualify and wouldn't qualify?

Uh absolutely. So we are ready to launch tomorrow.

Uh we have um a special web page on Engage Veroyal, which provides um information.

We have an online application form, which I'm very excited about.

Uh and uh folks have the opportunity to fill out the application, save it, and come back to it.

So that feature is there, just like um the surveys.

Uh and uh we will give um folks about uh four weeks to to submit applications because we would like um folks to have an opportunity to work, you know, work on their projects over the summer and when it's good weather.

Okay, last question would be let's say if we have 10 applications.

So how are you judging which ones are better than others?

Through the mayor, we have a criteria that we evaluate against.

Um in the policy, it outlines what uh uh the that criteria is, what we're looking for when we're evaluating the applications.

One very important piece though is that it's not going to increase the town's level of service.

So we will not like we can't go out there and maintain, we can't go out there and um deal with any issues.

So that is going to be a very important piece of it because we don't have the staff capacity or a budget to maintain these projects.

Okay, no, uh thank you. That's all the questions that I have. Uh Councillor Rogers, you had one.

Yes, uh, thank you.

Oh, very exciting.

Uh does this um um then with staff's blessings um permit a uh temporary road closure for an event through Mary Tobias?

Uh that is um we have a I my understanding I may have to turn to my colleague uh Mr.

Long. My understanding is that uh we have a total a complete a separate um process with respect to road closures, but if uh community if a neighborhood would like to host like a block party or something like that, uh there are other town bylaws that they would need to uh comply with.

So it's it's really difficult for me to say, oh yes, that would be um permitted or supported without considering other town bylaws.

But the the public would be uh informed and and they'd have to take the appropriate action with whatever other department that's uh involved.

The um development services will be working with the other departments very, very closely as part of the review of these applications.

So it is it is somewhat time intensive for sure.

Any other questions, comments?

Uh we got a mover, got a seconder, all those in paper.

Any opposed? Anything non-opposed?

Thanks, Leanne.

Thanks for carrying through with the initiative.

I look uh forward to seeing the communication.

And Elna, I think this is over to you for the revised acting mayor schedule for to take us into November.

Thank you. So the report before you this evening is requesting approval of a revised acting mayor schedule for the remainder of 2026.

Since council initially approved the um acting mayor schedule in December 2025, Councillor Kowalewich has resigned uh leaving his June and July rotation uh vacant and in addition councillor McKenzie has informed that she will not be available during her rotation of August and September.

So the revised schedule before you uh adjust the rotation accordingly moving um everybody up uh to ensure coverage during um June to November of this year and so we're just requesting approval of this revised schedule as you will see attached in attachment day of the report so moved second uh moved by councilor lemon seconded by counselor matsen uh all those in favor any opposed then no more you allowed to leave though no more of you allowed to leave though just saying until your term is out uh uh thank you alna for that and uh rearranging I think we are down to a consent agenda now.

Does anybody wish to pull anything from the consent agenda?

Counselor lemon.

E through H, please.

E H and anybody else want to pull anything out of the consent agenda.

Seeing none. Uh uh, okay.

So now we're gonna vote on the consent agenda without E through H on it.

So uh A through D and I J.

Can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda with those changes?

Uh they're in there, yeah.

Yeah. So moved.

Moved by Councillor McKenzie.

Do I have a seconder?

Seconded by Councillor Rogers.

All those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion carries counselor Lemon.

Your E F and H will now be uh 11 ABCD.

I think Councilor Lemon wanted to speak to them.

Go ahead, Councilor Lemon.

Uh yeah, uh we have four letters from residents of Erskine who are um surprised that uh there have been the that parking is no longer allowed on Erskine.

We've had presentations, we've had several letters, not one saying, thank goodness there's a bike lane there, all of them saying we've never seen a bike.

Bikes don't use this street.

What we need is parking.

So I move that we restore parking on Erskine Lane.

Start okay. Um we got a motion, I guess we'll call this a motion arising, uh, that uh to restore parking, which there never was.

So we we better uh rephrase that to have parking on Ericskin Lane.

Okay, to have parking on Ericskin Lane.

Moved by Councillor Lemon and seconded by Councillor Uh Brown.

Uh certainly allow you opportunity to motivate Councilor Lemon.

Well, I I think I've said what I intend to say.

We've we've had absolutely zero requests to um ensure there's no cars um in the area that is intended to be a bike lane.

Uh people need places to park.

There's simply not enough enough parking.

There's there's more construction going up there and it's it's at a premium.

And uh it's it's wasted space.

It's wasted space on the road, it's not being used for bikes.

Thank you, uh Councillor Lemon. Counselor Brown.

Yeah, I've been by there many, many times.

I've yet to see a bike, doesn't mean that there isn't, but uh um I certainly have heard from people that live there or rent there that uh would prefer to have the parking space and there is more developing happening on that road as well.

Um, and part of it's perhaps our fault for not you know not making sure the developer put enough parking spaces in in the first place.

But um it's not unsafe.

Uh people that ride the bikes can typically maneuver if they have to.

It's a very short trip to the galloping goose from there, and really uh, yeah, and of course it's the maintenance thing we gotta deal with.

Um forcement. I've seen uh yeah, I mean, people still even with the plastic things there, they still make their way around there and park.

So um to me, um, yeah, well said.

I mean, to this waste of space.

Counselor McKenzie, and then Councillor Matson.

Oh, Mike, me first.

Counselor McKenzie first, and then you, Counselor Matson.

So uh the reason that this initially came up was because we received uh a whole number of complaints from cyclists, likely, uh, about the bike lanes being parked on.

So I think the reason we're now seeing the opposite is because we've now enforced that.

So I wouldn't expect to receive uh letters from uh cyclists for this.

Um and my my issue with this is that I don't think this bike lane is the real problem.

It's kind of the easy fix is to turn this back, or not back into, turn this into parking.

Um, there is a bigger problem at there, and I think we need to figure that out.

Um, and if we do this, it's just like a band aid on on the problem, and I think we need to work harder to figure out how do we uh fix the issue, um, even though it might require more work and harder harder thinking.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie.

Councilor Matson.

Well said, Counselor McKenzie in terms of what I've heard from my other colleagues perhaps we could free up parking on Island Highway and Helmcken and just have get rid of those damp pesty cycle lanes and have parking on both sides of the streets that would deal with the parking problem that side I I think what you've said was just perfectly made perfect sense it's we may as well get rid of bicycle lanes throughout the whole community now that I've had fun with that one the other thing that was pointed out was this is probably the most dense area in all of View Royal and as my colleagues pointed out it's going to be even denser so why on earth would we take the most dense area and get rid of cycle lanes from those areas I am totally opposed to the motion.

Thank you Counselor Matson.

Councillor Rogers um uh we started the problem we um allowed and agreed with and took the argument from the developer and from staff to reduce the parking we made the decision to reduce the parking in number nine and um and we were we bought into the rationale that um it is close to walking shopping it is close to the EN close to the bus stop and so we did um require the bicycle parking for this.

The um, I think the in fact, you know, this was a decision that was four years ago.

And the bike lane um was put in as a result of uh consideration not only for um those residents that are new in um this new establishment number nine, but we're also considering the uh cyclists and um the safety of those across the street at Stone Ridge.

There's a lot of children there, and there's a lot of people that um uh do use, even uh number 14 and and so forth.

So the the problem is that this lane is narrow.

And uh if you have a whole series of parking parked cars, and a cyclist is going up that narrow road, they become there's a possible liability that car doors open, they don't see, and some cyclists will get knocked off.

Um, it's a narrow lane.

Not everybody has electric bike.

So if some cyclist is going very slowly up that steep hill, and those individuals are, you know, all the vehicles are wanting now to follow slowly that cyclist up the hill, wishing that he had his own lane so that they could pass him.

There are safety issues, there are logistics that we gave this due consideration.

Indeed, we erred.

We should have permitted maximum parking for number nine.

And indeed, the number of parking spaces that are on Erston Lane are insufficient.

You're gonna have to have a whole bunch of parking through into Saanich and down um probably on adjacent roads and and Watkins Way.

It is, you know, I think we should uh if we're going to, as Council McKenzie is saying, if we're going to consider options, we'd better have another look at Watkiss Way and start thinking about parking on that street.

So um the lane and the bike lane is there for a specific purpose to assist those cyclists safely to ascend a steep hill.

So please let's um uh we must heed uh safety first rather than convenience because we in in uh you look around uh the end of Erskine Lane a whole bunch of other parking stalls have been um installed so maybe what we do is we buy number five number what is it seven yeah number five let's buy number five and make a parking lot that's gonna be the solution that's be that'll be what the the individuals that's where you solve both problems there's lots of parking we pay the three ten fifteen million dollars for it and then the cyclists can also go safely that's not feasible is it okay I'm opposed to the motion.

Thank you Councillor Rogers one of the things that I think for the past three and a half years has excited me about being mayor is trying to uncover the truth behind things.

Because sometimes there were decisions that was made very long time ago.

In this case uh counselor Rogers are I I think is quite accurate in saying they came in with the development.

Council's decision at the time was to reduce the parking because everybody bought into that belief that the world would suddenly change, public transit would become adequate in in View Royal.

Um, you know, and and everybody would just magically get around by magic carpets or something.

They didn't take into consideration that the three people sharing a two-bedroom or one-bedroom apartment all have cars, all have to work, gig jobs, and there was a need for more parking.

We are not downtown.

We are not downtown.

People are here need a car to get around to drop their kids off.

Even people that want to do the right thing and have cargo bikes and bring their kids to work just don't have that many hours in a day.

I want to read something that was the CAO forwarded to me to the from the engineering department.

And um, it's uh by a fellow who lives uh in blueprint properties on Irkhan.

Here's what he's talking about.

I want to isolate it to this one thing.

So why are we getting so many late uh letters?

Recently, Blueprint Properties sent out parking regulations for communal errors and also mentioned that we could write to suggest that the bike lane along Irkskin Lane allow parking for cars.

The reason why we're getting all of these things is management of nine Irkskin Lane is encouraging residents to write in because they're gonna influence our decision.

Obviously, a council decision had been made before to reduce the parking.

It was uh probably inadequate to begin with, and we would still have overflow of parking.

So the reason why we're getting inundated with this issue is that the property managers are encouraging.

Um, so I I took a good drive and walk around Irkskin Lane this weekend.

We're not built out on Irkskin Lane yet.

We're not done.

And now we're saying the only one bike lane on one side of the street to make it up a very steep turn, uh, we're gonna turn that into parking.

There will never be enough parking there.

Never. Doesn't matter if we get rid of the bike lane or not, there is not enough parking there.

Even if we mandated double the parking in some of those uh uh new buildings.

So, what do we do with the only part and the the bike lane itself doesn't go the whole way, right?

It's not the whole way down, it's just perhaps on the most dangerous blind crust part of it that the bike lane is there.

So uh I I you know I I I love the fact that people have been motivated uh to writing in to allow for you know a dozen parking spots, potentially max, but uh I'm not a big bike lane advocate either, but in this one I think it's more of a safety thing.

And here's what would keep me awake about making a decision to turn that bike lane now after council's already made a long-term decision into parking.

What happens tomorrow uh when we when we turn it into parking and the first kid gets hit by a truck on that road?

That's not gonna make me feel like I made the right decision.

And there's nowhere else for that kid to go because it's a curb sidewalk with very narrow lanes.

So just on the issue of safety, I'm not going to be supporting the recommendation, Lemon.

Uh I although I I do feel there was a it was a good time to have a good debate about it.

I I think that I just wouldn't be able to sleep with myself knowing that council made a decision, reversed the decision, and somebody got hurt on.

But we got a mover and we got a seconder.

Is there any other comments?

Just one other quick one.

I think this the developer used our existing bylaw, which allowed them to buy parking spots, and council had no discretion because that's what the bylaw currently allowed.

So and so and not on that one.

Because they are allowed to, we have a bylaw that allows developers.

Did we remove that bylaw?

That certainly was my understanding.

No, we didn't remove that bylaw.

So we anyway.

No, we we were um if I think the trade-off was that we were talking about the fact it was easy walking distance to the bus hub, easy walking distance to shopping, um, that they had adequate enough um they met all the requirements for biking stalls, and that we invested in a light at the intersection.

Leanne, did you have a point that you wanted to make?

Um through the mayor, thank you.

Uh there was no cash in Louis so see with the development um permit with variance application.

Council um reduced the parking requirement.

I believe it was from 370 parking spaces down to 340 something parking spaces on site.

Leanne, I'm I know that you had uh a parking bylaw uh that was being floated for uh the upcoming uh I think uh financial cycle it does that is that also associated with a a realistic parking study not a bike advocate but like okay so where's the density for because as I I recall council I wasn't here there was also a development uh is it on six mile that was a condo and then they charged people for the the parking and it displays nobody wanted to pay for the parking associated with the con uh the condo so it displaced everybody to the roadway and now parking becomes a town issue because nobody wanted to buy the parking associated with the condo.

So are are we learning our lessons let about parking and saying there is a belief out there that we have an abundance of parking and from right now I'm just not feeling it.

I would love to believe we're in another world but I'm not seeing that we have an abundance of parking in uh and and I'll go to one step further in my observations so in Canadian tire and I'll just remind council of some decisions here I I I wasn't part of them but in Canadian Tire when the uh Scottish Cultural Center was built we had some sort of agreement that if there was an overflow and after hours then they could use but then uh the Canadian tire parking but then we went ahead and approved Canadian tire for reducing their parking to adding on another thing.

Right. So I I think our direction to staff has got to be we do not have an abundance of parking, and that parking is increasingly becoming everybody's problem.

Yeah, just the other things over the years we've been told that our parking, we no longer need as much parking, and not so much that the parking is available somewhere else, but we've just had over requirements, and you don't really need the parking in these buildings that we originally had.

Counselor Matson.

And so which has led us to making some changes which have allowed even less parking.

So again, and I think we and if the case is, in fact, as you'd mentioned, uh more people are getting into you know one and two-bedroom apartments than there historically was, and they're bringing their cars with them, maybe you know, especially in places like Erskine Lane, like that there is no options for people.

And just to remind council too, because I have to remind myself, the future looks like around where the transit-oriented development area is around the hospital, that's 10 stories with no parking.

That that's the provincial said like waive the parking requirement.

There's 10 stories there.

So you know, to Councilor Rogers' point, uh, so we save and and the other provincial legislation not um requiring off-site uh parking or or on-site parking now displaces uh those people, and that could be for the single multi on the streets.

So just think of a place like West Burnside, where you there is no shoulder, you know, your shoulder is rock or a tree or whatever.

And if you put something there, then those requirements.

So I I'm just concerned right now that the our approach has to include a parking element, because if we think we're getting complaints now about people I don't recognize in my neighborhood parking in front of my house, that that is going to be a permanent fixture.

It's going to be everywhere and it's going to be pervasive.

So that's that's my rant that uh we we and with our level of growth, uh Eagle Creek that I frequently uh go to right across from my neighborhood.

Uh when I first started going there, I said, wow, there's enough parking here for everybody.

Try on a Friday afternoon, you know, and try with the level of growth that hasn't even opened up, like a spire and everything else that goes there.

It's it's you're gonna be doing circles to find find parking there.

So that's what we got.

Um so we got a motion uh or we got a motion on the floor uh with a seconder to uh convert the bike lane to parking.

Uh so all those on Irkskin Lane, all those in favor of the bike lane parking on Irkskin Lane, all those in favor.

That's your motion, Councilor Lemon.

So all those in favor of Councillor Lemon's motion that Councilor Brown seconded it, the the that he's not voting for anymore.

Uh all those opposed.

Uh okay, so I let you down.

Don't let counselor brown second you anymore.

Um okay, so thank you for that, Counselor Lemon.

Um, so now can I have uh Councilor Lemon uh have you uh put a motion to receive um the correspondence.

Uh uh new ABCD for uh 11.

Uh moved uh to receive those uh counselor brown seconds.

You okay with that?

All those in favor of receipt.

Any opposed? Uh seeing none opposed motion carries.

Uh I just wanted to compliment uh Linda for all the Linda John for all the work she did on that one letter.

Thank you, Councillor Matson.

I think that brings us to question period.

We'll start in the room.

anybody want to ask council any question?

Doesn't have to be about on the agenda, just uh could be a question.

Hopefully it's somewhat related to the town of U Royal, but it really doesn't specify in the rule book.

No questions. Uh Carl, have we got anybody online with a question for council?

Uh Mayor Tobias, we do.

I'm just queuing one up now.

Um we have a message from Jason Jensen of Creed Road.

And their comment is or their question is for years View Royal has funded professional engineering and QEP reports for municipal infrastructure, but does not always act on the professional recommendations.

The Marlar Park and Northern Stormwater Ponds serve as a clear example of this.

18 months ago in November 2004 24, Colquitz Engineering issued a technical memo with precise instructions, inspection and repair damaged fencing and Northern Stormwater Pond.

Or while this starting again that fence.

Well, while this report only covered Marlar Park, the Northern Stormwater Pond has the exact same hazard.

A lack of Fulmer report does not absolve the town of its maintenance duties.

When asked about this delay, View Royal staff's position was that these repairs were being prioritized to balance cost and risk.

They further responded that the risk is low because water levels are receding, and it would not be a deliberate effort for it would be a deliberate take a deliberate effort for a person to get past the fence.

Let's be clear, leaving a known hazard unaddressed for a year and a half isn't balancing risk.

Risks it's creating it, and it puts humans and pets at risk year-round.

The town had a QEP report done on the stormwater pond back in 2016, but didn't follow up with another professional assessment until 2024.

This neglect has been building for a decade, and the massive size of mature trees tearing the infrastructure proves it.

This inaction places the town in direct violation of municipal, multiple municipal regulations, including its own property maintenance bylaw 512 section 5.1.7, which strictly mandates that fences be kept in good repair and free from accident hazards.

If a private resident used bird netting nesting windows to excuse an 18-month delay on a hazardous fence violation, the town would find them.

Since the staff has now had ample time to review the 2024 directives and the applicable bylaws, I'm asking counsel for a transparent commitment tonight.

What's the specific calendar date by which View Royal will finally complete these safety repairs on the fencing at both ponds?

And that's the complete message.

Thank you, Carl. Appreciate the question.

And we have no other uh questions on the board.

Thank you, Carl.

Motions and notices of motions.

So motions are things that have been read in in the previous meeting.

And notices of motion uh it's just reading them in tonight.

No motivation, just reading what your motivate or your motion is.

We'll go to first 14A, which is Councilor Brown's uh motion on short-term rentals.

So order is uh just enough motivation to get a seconder.

Right, Councillor Brown then you'll pause for a seconder and then if you've got a seconder we can take continue discussions.

If you don't get a seconder then we don't continue discussions but go ahead counselor Brown okay let me read the motion again or not yeah go ahead and read the motion then town of V Royal and then our short term rental regulations to align with the provincial regulations and requirements.

And then if uh you've got a seconder now counselor lemon seconds and now plenty of opportunity to motivate uh for you first counselor brown and then counselor lemm well first and foremost um well it kind of makes sense to me do to have alignment uh I'm quite happy with the provincial uh legislation I'm quite happy with it uh and of course the neighboring municipalities certainly callwood already has it something in place they have bottle in place uh squire malton sanit's recently uh passed theirs, so they have it.

So our surrounding municipalities already allow it.

Um we do not have a hotel in uh in V Royal.

And even in greater Victoria, the average price for a hotel room is uh $350 a night.

Um there is many, many reasons for people to to first of all have short-term rentals and to use short-term rentals.

Um typically uh in other places, other countries, even people using short-term rentals, it's for very, very short term.

Might be for a week, might be for two weeks, it might just be for a weekend to attend uh a ball tournament or to watch their children or grandchildren in tournaments, uh that type of thing, rather than having to pay um the $350 a month or a night, I mean.

And it's not gonna take away the opportunity for hotel to move in there.

I don't think we're thinking looking at hundreds of people wanting to do short-term rentals.

I don't think that's the case.

I think it provides uh an opportunity, many opportunities uh for empty nesters, uh perhaps even seniors, sometimes seniors, a senior couple might lose their partner and all of a sudden their costs don't go in half.

In fact, their costs stay exactly the same, but maybe half the income.

So it's an opportunity.

Uh first-time home buyers.

I've done it myself for students at UVC, the first house I bought many, many years ago with my beautiful ex-wife.

You know, we had two extra bedrooms, and we used short-term rentals by semester.

And that worked quite well.

Um, we did we we tried something unique.

We tried this amnesty period for the uh World Cup of Soccer, which is gonna be the biggest event ever, even surpassing the winter Olympics.

Uh, our fearless leader from the not so fun party, I mean the NDP party, he was on today saying about the billion dollars that the World Cup's gonna bring into Vancouver, of course, and BC, but also the million visitors that are expected.

And guess what?

They're gonna have a hard time even finding hotel room.

The average hotel room in Vancouver in June, most of it's booked.

There's still some space available, but the average price is $922.

Great for the Learjet rentals, renters that come in and park and can afford the $1,500 a ticket.

But what about the mom and pop businesses or people that might want to make a little bit of money in a short period of time, especially now when tax notices just came out and everyone's uh concerned about their taxes.

And people should not have to sell their home because the costs have gotten so high.

They shouldn't have to have a chip mortgage.

They shouldn't have to do that.

They shouldn't have to defer their taxes.

People in Vancouver during the PE, they they rent out space for cars parking for the two-week period of time.

Perhaps the province might take a lead.

There's still an opportunity for them to have an amnesty period during the World Cup of Soccer.

Anyway, I digress a little bit.

But it's to me, it makes total sense.

Unless you're NIMBY, I don't understand why you wouldn't allow short-term rentals in View Royal.

And not only the principal uh regulations there, we can add extra stuff if we want.

I I think we should tread with great caution because I know in Sanich, there's already a group of people that are gathering money together to challenge uh some of the restrictions, in addition to the province that the uh council has already passed.

Not to say that would happen here.

However, I think the legislation's adequate.

Uh people live on the premise.

Um I don't think people are coming here.

This is not Pentector, this is not a Soyuz.

This is not a great big party ski town where people are gonna come.

It could happen.

It could happen on a long-term rental.

You got people coming into party.

It it doesn't lock the people in.

If they want to sell, they just change their mind, they do want to sell, they don't have to worry about the the uh uh landlord and tenancy act.

So to me, I'm sorry, to me it's a no-brainer, and it's not hundreds of people coming in.

It's not gonna stop a hotel that comes in has a nice pool, perhaps a theater, uh nice restaurants.

That's still gonna happen.

And you know, well, whatever the price is, but wow.

I I I'm doing okay, but I certainly can't afford nine twenty-two a day, thank, or or even three fifty a night in Greater Victoria.

So um give the people the opportunity, and I'm I again it's not gonna be hundreds of people doing this.

And uh to to do anything otherwise to me is an embryism.

Thank you, Councillor Brown. Council Lumber.

Yeah, at at the time we put a stop to uh short-term rentals, it was there was a uh really desperate push to find dwellings for people.

The our bake vacancy rate was around a zero, uh, and uh the we understood the the need and the and what seemed the responsibility to do what we could at our end um to provide potential homes for people.

Um but things have changed in in View Royale alone and across the region, there's a substantial number of rentals available in new developments.

Also, I don't I don't think we're a holiday destination.

We're we're a hospital and royal roads and a family visiting destination.

And I think the provincial regulations were targeting larger developments as our regular speaker Diane has pointed out, um, which were being bought in blocks.

I I think the the Janian downtown, which were being bought in in blocks for the very purpose of short-term rental use only.

I have a very, very good friend who's left town and I miss her.

Um her her livelihood was short-term rental.

She had a suite downstairs where she lived, um, so the upper floor was was available to people who came in to, you know, for all of all of the varying reasons, and not always on holidays, many of them going to Royal Roads or even to UVC.

Uh and she she didn't want to run a bed and breakfast.

She didn't want to be cooking for people.

She just had space and it was it was a good space, and people were prepared to pay for it.

She never ever regretted any, you know, any of the guests that she had.

Uh so yeah, we've cut off her income stream.

And so I I I support going with the provincial regulations.

I think they I think for the time we're in, they do the job.

Thank you, Council Lemon. Uh questions or comments from Council. Council Rogers.

Yeah. It's only two municipalities, Langford and Colwood, that have done the provincial regulations.

And uh looking at uh the the document, it's um pretty darn detailed.

Um and um rather than rushing to the province model, um, I would have been hopeful to have a comparison to see what other municipalities have done on the short-term rentals.

I don't know, I I'm not confident that the provincial regulations are um I they're they've certainly hit all the points, but I'm not entirely confident without hearing from and seeing uh an evaluation of the other municipalities uh who have um developed their own short-term rentals, and maybe it's uh it's a better fit than um the provincial regulations.

Um the um the whole aspect of secondary suites began in 2007, and um VO was the first municipality to do so.

Um we and at the time uh we had charged a significant amount of money uh for uh the privilege of having a secondary suite because we wanted it to be revenue neutral.

We wanted there to be um sufficient um funding for uh enforcement and staff resources and so forth, so that it wouldn't be an additional tax on the residents.

And it was a substantial amount per house per unit.

And over the years, the those with secondary suites successfully campaigned to have this wiped out.

So now it's, I think, just a uh a business license or that uh similar aspect.

So uh when um those who have short-term rentals are recommending that, well, heck, you know, you can charge us a thousand a year.

Well, how long would that last before suddenly that got turned around?

And uh now it's going to be a uh an additional taxation resource uh to pay for staff, to pay for enforcement, to pay for whatever.

So I certainly don't have any any uh confidence in that.

The um view you all joined um the rest of the region in going full out, and of course, who who is pushing us to go full out for all these accommodations, the province, Bill 44 and so forth.

Um so uh we built the um the rental and condos and so forth, and maybe the market is has changed right now.

Um, and there's a lot of variables that where people are are um not wanting to live as much here in Victoria.

They're leaving for reasons, and they're leaving for reasons, not just because they couldn't rent any short-term rentals in their house.

They're moving for a whole bunch of other reasons.

Um in terms of FIFA, where we had thought that FIFA would be um uh a great need for short-term rentals, as it turns out, FIFA themselves surrendered at 80,000 rooms in the downtown Vancouver.

They don't want them.

They cashed them out.

They vacated 80,000 rooms.

Whether or not there's great confidence that a lot of jet setters would be coming, don't forget we still have a war.

We still have dire um issues with the movement of uh petroleum products, and they've probably a shortage of jet fuel by the time that comes along.

So whether or not the jet setters are jetting here is a debatable point.

Um I appreciate the uh the letters and and the concerns, but I'm also always very concerned that um it looks very convenient to have a short-term rental and throw out the long-term rentals.

When the lease is up, they're gone, and I can get, you know, the province will allow me to get 77,000 bucks in every 90 days, and um, and that'll be enough, and I won't have to worry about a damn tenant.

So um that does create um does undo, I fear uh the work that we have done since 2007.

And uh so at this point, um, I think it's short-sighted to go just for the provincial model without assessing what the other municipalities are doing, and they're gonna have to really convince me that they would have no impact on the long-term residential aspects that uh are important in and uh in the region.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Um couple of questions for staff related to this.

Uh Scott, I'll go to you.

Like, what is uh required to implement this?

If we really wanted to implement uh the short-term regulations to align with provincial requirements, the town, my understanding, would have to create a bylaw to amend that, correct?

We have a bylaw.

Yeah, the zoning bylaw uh dictates whether short-term rentals are allowed or not.

So would require an amendment to our zoning bylaw.

It would require bringing in the regulations.

Um it would require a deeper understanding of the provincial regulations.

Um it would be fair to say there's no way it's happening in time for FIFA.

Okay. And uh the other question I would have in and that there would be public engagement and uh like if council decided to move that route, is there an opportunity for public engagement associated with that bylaw change?

Leanne through through the mayor, uh yes, there would be a public hearing associated with those zoning bylaw amendments.

Okay. Um what would currently um in my neighborhood?

I have a condo that's on the market with blue pillow, I think.

The owner lives in Vancouver, and that's a permanent thing.

Um we have a bylaw that says no short-term rentals in View Royal.

Staff counted seven.

I've got a lot more than that on short-term rentals near me.

Do we have the bylaw available to enforce our current bylaw?

Uh with with one staff member in bylaw enforcement, uh we are not geared up to deal with uh going out looking for short-term rentals.

So our bylaw enforcement is done on a complaint basis, and we have not received complaints.

And uh and with that, if we were going to enforce a bylaw proactively about that, how many more staff would we need to enforce a bylaw on short-term rentals, providing that we pass it to ensure compliance?

I wouldn't require a full-time staff member, but certainly part-time and potentially the contracting out to a company like host host compliance, which actually goes out and searches, which I think is now being done by the province, but uh until recently you would contract that out and they would scour the listings.

Okay. And along with priorities, when do you would you see if council directed staff uh to align bylaws to provincial requirements?

When might council see that bylaw amendment?

Uh I would expect uh it would probably be September.

Thank you. Uh any other questions for folks that haven't asked questions? Counselor Brapp.

Yeah, they have a provincial uh enforcement branch.

So instead of us them downloading on us, maybe we should we could download that on them.

Like the 911 calls, they've downloaded that cost onto us.

Um, they have their own provincial enforcement.

In fact, they've already put their foot in there and and stepped in because of our amnesty period.

So they are active, so maybe you just well, well, change your bylaw.

And if we don't have the staff to enforce it, hey, that happens all the time.

We don't have the staff to enforce every parking regulation, uh you know, it noise and everything.

It you just can't do you have to prioritize.

And if they have their own their own enforcement agency, maybe they should be um looking into it.

And to counselor Rogers' point, we can add whatever extra regulation we want.

It could be parking, it could be the number of days, it could be any number of things we could add to it.

Uh Sanders has already done that, they've already gone through that.

They add the number of days.

Sanders is past it.

It's not just a squad, it's not just call it nightburn.

Scramble's just passed it, and Sanders just passed it.

And you know, um so they get the benefit, they're getting the benefit, and our citizens are not getting the benefit.

And again, I can go on and on.

I've got so many notes here about the pros and cons.

And yeah, there is a few cons, but if you're renting long-term to someone, there's no stopping them from having a big party.

And and if people want to stay in the hotel and pay $350 a night, I'm sure they still will when you've got the amenities of a nice restaurant or an outdoor heated pool or a theater.

These places don't have these your mom and pa things, and and there's not gonna be hundreds of people applying for a short-term rental.

Uh it's a helper, it's a mortgage helper.

It helps young people.

You could help seniors that all sit in a vacant spaces, yeah, or they're coming to study.

They're coming to study.

They're not coming to party.

They're coming to study.

So um there's so many reasons that pros.

Yeah there's there's always negatives to to everything.

But why would we not if we align with the problems why would we not align with our neighboring municipalities as well.

Thank you, Councilor Brown.

Councillor McKinnon thank you.

So I am I am supportive of uh this motion my only concern is regarding parking I believe well given our previous conversation and also I think that was a concern in the original discussions around um this topic so I wondered if staff would you be able to um kind of like explain what if any regulations or rules there are around uh parking with these uh short-term rentals um we're not really prepared to deal with this tonight in a in a staff report but if if the motion's successful we could we could write that up but I I don't think we know off the top of our head do you um through the mayor we do not have any parking uh short term rentals not a permitted use in our zone right now so we do not have required parking for that use and if this is another question that you can't answer tonight it's fine um would we be able to put something in if um we did permit it.

Uh through the mayor, yes.

Any other comments, Counselor matzon uh you know, I I look like I hear what my colleagues are saying, and yeah, and I agree for some people it it's it's it's the answer because maybe uh a longer term rental on their properties doesn't help them.

My problem is I can't differentiate where those people are versus where we'll be removing people who potentially don't have a home from access to a secondary suite.

And so that so that's sort of like my concern right now.

I don't have enough information in terms of to support this motion.

I mean, if there was a if the motion was to for staff to undertake a review of this and come back to us with all the questions and information that we that I need to make a decision, yeah, I could support that, but I I can't support this motion because it basically says that we're going to go follow the provincial legislation.

And I don't know what the impact is in view role um whether or not there will be people who won't get you know renewed as you know at the when their term is up because they can now make more money on uh short-term rentals.

So there's a whole bunch of things I would need to know before I could vote to uh endorse putting in short-term rentals.

Thank you. Uh Counselor Mattson, Counselor Rogers.

Yes, I'm I'm looking at the uh provincial legislation uh that staff have provided us uh at the last meeting, and um it does talk about the principal dwelling um uh you know SDR's short-term rentals in a principal dwelling.

And uh that's all very well good, but again, um back in when 2007 uh we stipulated that um secondary suites had to be in a principal residence occupied by the owner that got killed.

The uh uh it came back um due to uh concerns of those that had secondary suites to say no, no, no, uh we don't want uh you know it's unfair, it's unjustified.

And so we took it off.

We capitulated.

We didn't we reduce the fees, we reduced the uh the stipulation for unoccupied, and from what I hear, we probably don't do any enforcement in terms of the parking.

This the provincial legislation also says that you I think you can have a garden suite, a second secondary suite, and short-term rental.

How are you doing for parking there?

So, you know, when we look at this provincial regulation, understand it thoroughly, and we have not given staff the time to understand what the implications are here.

We got a few words that we will uh align with provincial requirements, but now we're saying maybe we should add this, maybe we should add that, maybe we should add this.

Well, we would, you know, the the uh the motion clearly does not uh you know I would I would suggest that we want to be able to thoroughly investigate what the implications are in our community without rushing into uh adopting an uh a provincial regulation.

Thank you, Councilor Brown.

Yeah, staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe when you apply for um uh Airbnb, you have to submit a parking plan, do you not?

No. Okay, well, we could add that as a regulation to have a parking spot.

And as far as converting it to a full-time rental, when you're starting out and you're trying to pay your mortgage payment and to come to the expense of tens of thousands or even more dollars to convert it to a suite, if you can't even afford to pay your mortgage or your taxes, uh you're not gonna be able to afford a tens of thousands of dollars to convert it to a long-term rental suite either.

So again, we're honestly we are not talking about hundreds of people lining up at the door to get a short-term rental permit.

I can assure you of that.

The vacancy rate is steadily going up here, and there's there's no shortage of places to rent.

So again, it it fills a very tiny niche.

Thank you, Councilor Brand.

Just gonna make a couple of comments.

This uh, I was looking back at the history of our uh decision on short-term rentals.

I was under the impression that it was last council that said no to short-term rentals.

It's not. It was our one of the first things we passed as a council.

And the reason why we passed it was the lack of affordable housing.

That's not changed.

We might have a four percent increase or vacancy rate increase.

Granted, that's good.

Nobody can afford to live in those that are living in a suite right now.

Nobody. So my neighbor has a suite and four borders by cans me.

Compliant with our bylaws, except I think the borders are not compliant with our bylaws.

Um but but that is an affordable thing.

Like, where do these people work?

They work at quality foods.

They work at Eagle Creek, they work at the gas station that we have in the shell.

So that that is an opportunity for affordability.

And for we never have, still don't have short-term rentals in Vie Royal.

By law doesn't allow it.

Right. So yet when I say short-term rentals near me, and I see two condos that would be otherwise rentals on my street because they're non-resident, so principal residents out the window.

And if we don't have bylaw to support this, how can we be assured of anything, Councilor Brown?

How can we be assured that it's gonna be 90 days?

How can we be assured of anything if we don't have bylaw?

We don't. So my perspective is that we made a decision as a council unanimously back in November when the term started because of our concern about affordable housing, that the and and took great pride and I remember counselor Rogers bringing up the fact that we were one of the first municipalities to allow suites and um and whatnot.

The situation hasn't changed affordable for people living and working in our neighborhood.

We have one person on our staff that lives in V Roy, mainly because the cost of living in V.

One person on our staff.

So I I'm not in favor of this without serious discussion and engagement.

And I appreciate everybody that has a suite and wants to come before us and advocate for it.

I really do. I have yet to hear somebody who's renting a suite that would soon be turned into a short-term rental about what their opinion is.

I'm the only one speaking up here.

So thank you. So I really think that this needs to have a discussion.

I don't think a jump into adopting provincial regulations is the way View Royal is rolled over the past 20 years.

And I think if we're going to do it, we need to follow some engagement and really look at the impact of what is the impact on our affordable housing that we have.

And we don't have much of it left because for every apartment that we put up, we've ripped out affordable housing.

We ripped out low rise apartment building to put in a high-density apartment building that nobody can afford to live in in Vero.

So where are they gone?

They're nowhere in the lower mainland now, or they're on the street because there's no place to live, and they're not staying in a short-term rental.

So my concern is do we have a diversity of housing available in View Royal before we look at something else?

I'm also not convinced that having a short term policy for short term rentals will have a negative effect on one of council's priorities of getting a hotel here.

Not convinced of that at all.

I don't think it would help us, to be honest with you.

And look at the employment opportunities that might create for our area.

So there's a couple of things that I'm I'm I'm not happy with right now with the motion that I can't support.

One is its real effect, not you know who's gonna stay in it.

I don't care who stays in it.

It's a short-term rental, it's a business, it's available for anybody.

Nobody can speculate who that is.

It's nice to think that these people would benefit from close proximity to the hospital or a hockey game or whatever, but it could be for any reason, and the reason doesn't matter.

Really doesn't matter.

What matters to me is what are we doing to our existing affordable housing opportunities in Bureau.

That's my only concern right now.

Council Mutt.

Just my last two cents, and that is uh largely because of, I guess draconian um rental laws.

People don't want to rent full-time, they want the opportunity to make choices around the the available spaces in their homes.

They often find themselves with tenants that you know, should they change their mind, they they find it hard to get you know to to lose.

Um, with they find themselves in tenancy situations which are untenable and unbearable.

Um they choose not to rent full time because it's just very often not pleasant.

And I think we heard from uh a a speaker tonight that uh they actually have tried to rent their place full time, and they've they've been unable, so they would choose to go another route.

Um I I don't know that it's on us to tell people that they have to solve the um housing crisis if there is one i'm not convinced there is any more um because they can make it more affordable than the corporations that are building up the road that's all I have to say thank you counselor lemon so we've got uh counselor you know what I've heard from staff is basically before the next election we're unlikely to ever have anything in place just the things we'd have to do so I mean one of the options is we could always put us on as as an election question or you know put it on the ballot do you want to have short term rentals or not are are you meaning like a referendum yeah referendum question that would be a separate motion though from no I'm just yeah an opportunity this is just sort of in terms of discussion because I don't think there's any way we could have anything done for this term well I'm sure somebody would but I guess folks I would all just we're gonna bring us back to the motion itself yeah that that's a politicalization of what the motion is which might be wonderful but um so we've got uh uh motivation from the mover and the seconder and questions so put it to a vote those in favor of council brown's motion that the town of View Royal amend it's short-term rental regulations to align with provincial requirements.

Those in favor of the motion.

Those against the motion.

So the motion was not successful for that, Councilor Prime.

Councilor Rogers, amend speed limits on Atkins Road.

Yes, thank you.

Speaking to the motion, um uh we had uh uh changed uh a lot of the staff provided us a report, and um we had the Atkins Road from Six Mile to uh Langford border um with uh 30k, but uh the east side uh of Atkins um was not and uh so it's just a uh a motion to bring it to consistent 30k off for the whole of Atkins Road.

Second seconded by Councilor Matson.

I just had a question, Ivan, for you was when you brought that to us, was there certain areas that were gonna go 30k with the plan that we approved and certain other ones that weren't?

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, the Atkins Road from Six Mile to Langford has always been 30 kilometers an hour.

So staff actually didn't make adjustments to the bylaw for that portion of Atkins Road, it was already 30, so we left it that way.

Uh Atkins Road from Six Mile towards the um C or D park and ride, that has always been 50.

And so when staff brought forward the bylaw, uh staff basically did what council literally directed staff to do, which is to um have all residential streets 30 kilometers an hour, island highway from uh uh Burnside Road west to Admirals to be 40.

And then upon uh the the first three readings, the amendment was done in the area, so that's uh Atkins towards the um towards the the park and ride would be 40.

So that was the direction.

Uh with respect to reducing the 30.

Uh back in 2024 when staff brought forward the staff report, uh, we engaged in consultants to uh have a better idea of um the the standards used to reduce speeds, and so one of them was to essentially adopt what the district of Sanich does when they do a traffic calming or speed reduction program.

Based on those metrics, Atkins Road from six mile to the parking ride wouldn't fit the mold for 30.

It better fits the mold for 40 kilometers an hour.

Thank you, Ivan.

And um just a bit of perspective.

Does that um road have uh Atkins that part of it?

Uh is that the one with all the speed bumps on it?

Uh Meritor Bias, no. So the part portion, yeah, it's the other side. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh I'll go to Councillor Brown and Council Record.

Yeah, I've lived in Atkins Road since 2005.

It's always been 30k, except for the section from six mile to Brighton Road.

So whatever this is, I'm kind of surprised that it doesn't carry on anyway.

I mean, I just require a sign.

I don't know. I mean, I used to be a highway patrol guy, but hey, there's lots of 30k signs, all the way from the savory elementary all the way down.

It's always been 30.

In fact, it's a school zone up top.

So um, we're talking about very short space from the overflow parking to the new section.

So I mean, really, how how many cars go up and down then, whether it's 40 or 30 per personally?

I could care less, but it's always been 30 for the other section.

Thank you, Councillor Brown. Counselor Ruck. Oh, sorry, uh Council McKenzie then counselor.

Um I just had a question for Counselor Rogers, I guess. Um, what kind of was the motivation for this?

Was it um complaints from residents or yeah, how did it come to uh a number of motivations uh one uh so the road should be consistent, all of Atkins have the same speed limit.

Um the the design of um the six Atkins Road um east to Byron um is hilly.

Uh there is literally no space for anyone to walk along.

Um people from the um adjacent uh condos walk along there.

In fact, there is a a woman who's um uh in a wheelchair and motorized uh um device and uh she regularly goes along that road.

Now it is a park and ride, so people are driving all the time back and forth, back and forth to the uh to the park and ride.

They're not cycling, they put their they drive there and then they're coming back.

So when you see the size of that parking lot, that uh is a sizable number of vehicles that are going back and forth backwards and forwards.

Um and whether or not they're doing 30 or 40.

Um, um it's um I think don't think we should take the risk when it is indeed a really narrow, windy, hilly, helly road that is very difficult for you to see it ahead in any sort of distance, like you can on Atkins, your Atkins is a lovely straight stretch, right?

You can see the pedestrians, so you can aim for them.

But in the on the other Atkins, you can't see them.

And you didn't intend to hit them, but you hit them.

So, you know, and it's not well lit either.

So let's let's let's be reasonable and make the road consistent.

It is a country narrow lane.

It's like making Erskine 40.

Sorry, just clarify though, this was your own initiative.

It wasn't a result from people petitioning you or there are there are there are no, you know, I if you want, I can get a petition, but really it's not necessary.

It's not necessary.

This is common sense.

This is the short road from one end to the other of Atkins.

And um uh, you know, when we had that discussion uh with the 30K and so forth, I'm really pleased that we we uh we made the change and and um I raised it back then.

And um so I'm required here to bring a motion.

Please let's consider the safety of of those pedestrians and reduce the speed of those that are going with intent of cycle.

Thanks, Councillor Rogers.

Uh Ivan, I've got a question specifically.

Do we have any data on certain areas of the town uh for actual speed vice posted speed?

I mean, we've done a lot to say let's put all these 30 kilometer signs everywhere, which I think is wonderful.

But did it really alter behavior?

Uh Meritobias, uh stage one traffic calming in accordance with our policy, um, since we're sended, but in the past, uh, was to install speed reader boards to get actual speeds, and based on the data would determine whether or not we either do nothing because there is not an issue, or we uh continue to do a stage two traffic calming.

So uh staff do have um speed signage out there to collect data.

They're mostly meant for residential streets.

Our policy only dictates uh traffic calling measures on those streets.

Um that said, uh, you know, staff can certainly look at uh other opportunities as well.

Atkins Road is um, yeah, it's a it's observed to be a narrow road.

Um in terms of pedestrian and cyclist accessibility, there is the parallel galloping goose regional trail right beside it that would serve uh many of the residences.

I think on Atkins Road, there's only two or three lots that it serves, so not too many crossing opportunities, and that forms the basis of what Sanich's uh traffic uh speed reduction measures are.

They're based on conflict points and and that based on Sanich's um uh process, uh this would be better suit for 40 kilometers an hour.

30 kilometers an hour, the issue comes with compliance and um enamored calls to RCMP to to um monitor that.

Yeah, I I I would be interested.

I don't know if council would be or not.

Those areas that we just moved from 50 to 30 kilometers an hour, uh particularly around the schools.

I'd be I'd be interested to see like what the actual change in behavior, like an average speed of before 55 miles an hour to now, you know, is it still 55 miles an hour that people are zooming by?

I know there's some attempt to slow down, but not always.

So yeah, just in the future, if you could supply council uh any data we have on View Royal about we changed the sign, but it did a change behavior kind of thing.

Counselor Brown.

I would hope cyclists and walkers would use the galloping goose as parallel to that section.

So why would you why would I have done it before myself, walk down that road, but why would you when the galloping goose runs parallel to that section?

Uh go ahead, counselor.

Um Councillor Brown, in order to answer the question, the um it's it's like saying, you know, why don't people do the galloping goose instead of walking along Atkins or the other side?

The the because and you're right, galloping goose is a lot flatter.

But as we heard when when people um you know uh a number of residents in that area express great concerns, particularly um the vulnerable individuals when you have to walk in the dark.

And uh you're you're it's two lanes of cyclists, you don't have a pedestrian lane, and it's a canyon.

So there is a a whole aspect of not um, you know, there's a feeling of of not being safe uh along the galloping goose uh in that section for walkers.

So and even if there was a parallel, it doesn't uh give us you know um a reason to um to not be consistent and and make that road consistent 30k one into the other.

Council McKenzie.

Um I appreciate uh Councillor Rogers, your uh kind of bringing this up, but um I don't think I can support going forward with something that will cost money when there isn't uh kind of data in terms of the need either from the traffic information or even from uh the community writing in.

So you know, there's a number of roads that I'm sure could have a similar motion to this, but without that uh level of of evidence to support the cost involved, then um yeah, right now I'm not convinced.

Thank you.

Thank you. Uh we got a mover, get a second or oh go ahead, uh councilman.

Just quickly, the things at cow trail.

I've cycled up it because I wanted to see the area because I you know you go up the road and you can see where all the trailers and things are.

That should be, you know, it's a horrible it's a cow trail, it should be 30 kilometers an hour.

And all it's gonna cost us is a couple signs.

Okay. I think uh we've had enough deliberation on a very small short of uh narrow road for 30 kilometers an hour.

All those in favor of counselor Rogers motion.

All those opposed.

Uh opposed is Councillor Lemon Brown and uh McKenzie.

And that's a tie.

So is that uh pardon me?

Yeah, it does not pass.

Um and uh down to the official community or the draft official community plan, Councilor Rogers.

Uh yes, thank you.

This is um I've uh uh in my report I've attached uh an assessment where um the BC government now um limits the minister municipalities' ability to hold public hearings uh with the new uh official community plan.

Unfortunately, the this this kind of information um prohibiting um public hearings on land use um is uh needs to be uh identified and provided.

Um and so the motion is uh that information regarding changes to the role of the official community plan under BC's uh British Columbia's Bill 44 be incorporated into the draft OCP and that the information be provided at open houses during OCP readings and at the OCP public hearing.

Nope, maybe there's the two.

Thank you, uh Councillor Rogers and just the rationale is that public hearings are no will no longer be permitted.

People need to be aware of that.

It it uh it's something that we should really make sure that that people understand.

But they're now when they go to the public hearing or sorry, open houses, when they look at all the the housing sorry, the um um land use um section, they have to understand what their voting supporting for because the OCP is silenced consent or um you know that anyway, I'm running out of wind.

Okay, yeah, we I think we get you.

We get you. Uh do you have a second?

I'll second. Seconded uh by Council Matson.

Now uh just to be clear, Lynn, there's no more open houses for the OCP.

Am I saying that correct?

There's uh definitely the hearings or the reading.

Uh that's correct, Councillor.

Uh pardon me, Mayor Tobias.

Uh there's no more public engagement on the OCP except for when we bring it forward for a public hearing.

Just wanted uh that brought in.

And I and I uh the only other thing I'd say, Counselor Rogers, where I'm wavering in support, is that you just mentioned one bill.

There there's a rash of of uh provincial legislation associated with its impact on the town uh that we've had to accommodate for.

So uh I would be supportive of it, something in summary, and as uh you know we're doing this because um the province made us do it, but I think um anything that goes into the detail that um that you're used to, I wouldn't be supportive because most people wouldn't read it.

So if if it was a general statement that we could use both in the OCP and somewhere else, I would be supportive of it.

Councilor McKenzie.

Thank you. Yeah, I if I recall, um I actually made a similar motion when we were going through the OCP to include reference to Bill 44 and explain all that.

So I believe it's already been included.

Let's go to Leanne and see if it has or not.

Uh through the mayor, yes.

Uh uh Councilor McKenzie is correct.

It was a motion that council already passed on on March the 31st.

Okay, thank you.

Uh is it embedded in in the OCP?

Do we hear is it text from the OCP that states that through the mayor, yes.

In the uh final draft, there is a section on provincial legislation.

The final draft, not the preceding drafts where the the motion had been made earlier by Councillor McKenzie.

Through the mayor, no, because councillor reviewed the draft OCP.

We took those motions, we've made revisions, and the final draft will be coming forward in June.

So are you going to withdraw your motion?

Yeah, withdrawal.

If Councillor McKenzie's already succeeded, I wasn't aware of that, or he succeeded in getting this important information to the public when it's coming up for the OCP public hearing, then um we're we're good.

Thank you. I withdraw.

My comment was it's so convoluted your motion that I couldn't understand half of it.

So the public wouldn't be able to.

Oh, good. No, I appreciate the intent.

So we're down to notices of motions where I encourage uh counselors that submitted you're not going to motivate, you're just gonna simply read them in, and that allows time for council and staff to um uh review them.

Go ahead, Councilor Matson, for your notice of motion.

Sure, that staff prepare options to reduce the negative impacts of construction related road closures, including but are but not limited to uh limiting the hours of closure allowed.

Uh e.g. not rush hours, requiring those requesting closures to pay for individuals, uh traffic controlled people or whatever they refer to to redirect uh rat runners out of residential areas and back onto the designated roads and to increase the fees charged uh to close roads to uh incent shorter closures.

Thank you, Councilor Mattson. Uh councilor Rogers, can you read in your expand Helmkin Park and Right?

Thank you. Uh the council Wright, the Victoria Regional Transit uh the and the Victoria Regional Transit Commission and the Ministry of Transportation Infrastructure, urging both parties to collaborate on expanding parking capacity at the Helmican Park and Ride following the completion of Moti's bus on shoulder project and the removal of the staging Modi's staging buildings and equipment from the site.

So uh just for clarification, are you asking in this motion to expand the parking area or are you asking to reclaim the parking area once those buildings and equipment removed?

Once the uh the um uh staging buildings and equipment have been removed that uh it'd be the parking ride be expanded to that area so there'll be more parking spots.

Okay, I understand the parking ride.

Okay, thank you. And uh your next one, please.

Uh that staff incorporate uh transit information uh infrastructure improvements, including bus pullouts, bus pads, and transit shelters uh into the active um transportation improvements planned along Admirals Road.

And I'm not sure what project that is, but I'll find it.

Okay, and uh your final one. Thank you.

Yes, that staff initiate the process to degazette the portion of Little Road owned by the town of Vero fronting onto Eagle Creek Park and the municipally owned property at 1642 Little Road in order to facilitate additional parkland.

Thank you, uh Councillor Rogers.

I and I want to reach out and thank uh Councilor Brown and uh Matson and you, Councilor Rogers, for uh taking the time putting these things together and submitting them because I think they made a difference.

I I appreciate them and it makes me do some research and I learned from it.

Um if I was um but was gonna feel not happy about something that we could have been doing more as a council, that would have been um probably spending more time with our bylaws.

I think the work that we did do to our bylaws uh of interest um uh for short or for uh uh for SMU housing in particular, none of the other municipalities did that, and now they're looking to ours to get a good sense of what it looked like because we're concerned about saving trees, allowing setbacks, reducing square footage, making them affordable.

Uh a lot of them, including a Esquimalt of you read the news, are very concerned about what their SMU has looked like because it's they've just adopted the provincial legislation, all of a sudden they're getting a box that's the entire size of their uh of the lot and uh really intense and massing.

So I I I really appreciate that.

Uh if there's uh and there's how many more meetings left that were uh no including cows?

There's 12 or 11, 11.

So so uh that that doesn't mean that um uh all of our work is done, but uh I appreciate everything that you're doing to support a better world here in View Royal.

So with that, I don't think we have any closed agenda tonight, Elna.

So uh can I get a motion to adjourn?

Second. Moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor McKenzie, all those in favor?

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

And we'll see you all next Tuesday.